Leonard Blackmon v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 30, 2017
• Docket: 71A04-1606-CR-1483
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jan 30 2017, 8:46 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Philip R. Skodinski Curtis T. Hill, Jr. South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana George P. Sherman Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Leonard Blackmon, January 30, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 71A04-1606-CR-1483 v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Jeffrey L. Sanford, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 71D03-1511-F5-248

Mathias, Judge.

[1] Leonard Blackmon (“Blackmon”) was convicted in St. Joseph Superior Court

of Level 5 felony attempted battery and Class B misdemeanor criminal

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1606-CR-1483 | January 30, 2017 Page 1 of 5 mischief. Blackmon appeals his attempted battery conviction and argues that

the State failed to rebut his claim of self-defense.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On November 15, 2015, before 10:00 p.m., Blackmon arrived at Vickie’s Bar in

South Bend, Indiana. Blackmon’s behavior seemed odd to employee Sativa

Becker (“Sativa”), and she continued to watch Blackmon while he was in the

bar. Eventually, Sativa approached Blackmon and asked if she could help him.

Blackmon jumped away from Sativa and yelled, “stay away from me.” Tr. p.

32. Blackmon walked toward the door to the bar and Sativa told him “it was

probably time to go.” Id.

[4] Sativa’s husband, Larry Becker (“Larry”), who was playing pool at the bar,

heard Sativa tell Blackmon to leave. Larry also asked Blackmon to leave and

began to walk towards Blackmon to prevent him from coming further into the

bar.

[5] Blackmon was irate and continued to yell, “stay away from me,” and removed

a knife from his jacket. Id. Blackmon lunged toward Larry and quickly swung

the knife at Larry’s abdomen. The two men were standing approximately four

feet apart. When Blackmon returned the knife to his side, Larry pushed

Blackmon out the door and locked it. Blackmon then struck the glass in the

front door with his knife causing the glass to crack. Blackmon left the scene but

was later apprehended and arrested.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1606-CR-1483 | January 30, 2017 Page 2 of 5 [6] The State charged Blackmon with Level 5 attempted battery with a deadly

weapon and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief. A jury trial commenced

on May 9, 2016. Blackmon testified in his own defense and argued that he only

pulled out his knife because he feared for his safety. He admitted that he caused

the damage to the bar’s door.

[7] Blackmon was found guilty as charged. His sentencing hearing was held on

June 8, 2016. He was ordered to serve an aggregate six-year sentence for his

convictions. Blackmon now appeals his attempted battery conviction.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Blackmon argues that the State failed to rebut his claim that he acted in self-

defense at Vickie’s Bar on November 15, 2015. The standard for reviewing a

challenge to the sufficiency of evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense is the

same standard used for any claim of insufficient evidence. Wilson v. State, 770

N.E.2d 799, 801 (Ind. 2002). We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the

credibility of witnesses. Id. If there is sufficient evidence of probative value to

support the conclusion of the trier of fact, the judgment will not be disturbed.

Id.

[9] To prevail on his self-defense claim, Blackmon had to prove that he: (1) was in

a place where he had a right to be; (2) acted without fault; and (3) was in

reasonable fear or apprehension of bodily harm. Henson v. State, 786 N.E.2d

274, 277 (Ind. 2003); see also Ind. Code. § 35-41-3-2. A person who provokes,

instigates, or participates willingly in the violence does not act without fault for

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1606-CR-1483 | January 30, 2017 Page 3 of 5 the purposes of self-defense. Shoultz v. State, 995 N.E.2d 647, 660 (Ind. Ct. App.

2013), trans. denied.

[10] When self-defense is raised and finds support in the evidence, the State bears

the burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements. Wilson, 770

N.E.2d at 800. The State may meet its burden by offering evidence directly

rebutting the defense, by affirmatively showing that the defendant did not act in

self-defense, or by relying on the sufficiency of the evidence from its case-in-

chief. Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 700 (Ind. 1999). If a defendant is

convicted despite his self-defense claim, we will reverse only if no reasonable

person could say that self-defense was negated beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 801.

[11] Blackmon relies on his testimony to argue that the State failed to rebut his claim

of self-defense. However, Sativa’s and Larry’s testimony, which conflicted with

Blackmon’s, established that Sativa asked Blackmon to leave Vickie’s Bar.

Larry moved toward Blackmon to prevent him from moving further into the bar

and told him to leave. Blackmon was moving toward the door, but suddenly

pulled out a knife, lunged at Larry, and swung the knife at Larry’s abdomen.

[12] Blackmon acted aggressively, and the jury was free to discredit Blackmon’s

testimony that he feared for his own safety, especially because neither Sativa

nor Larry was armed. For these reasons, we conclude that the State presented

sufficient evidence to rebut Blackmon’s claim of self-defense. We therefore

affirm his conviction for Level 5 felony attempted battery.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1606-CR-1483 | January 30, 2017 Page 4 of 5 [13] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1606-CR-1483 | January 30, 2017 Page 5 of 5